Jump to content
The Education Forum

Eulogy of Bobby Kennedy by Edward Kennedy


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

The injunctions from the Holy Book to protect and assist the poor are certainly pervasive, aren't they?

But as I recall RFK was also becoming critical of some aspects of the Great Society's War on Poverty. I believe there has even been a book written on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tim, you are a conservative. That means you do what you can to protect the status quo. It is a common philosophy amongst those who come from affluent countries. It makes economic sense, although I think it is morally dubious.

On the other hand, Jesus Christ was highly critical of the status quo. George Bernard Shaw claimed he was the world’s first socialist. He was not of course, because several Greek philosophers had already put forward socialist ideas. Jesus might or might not have been a socialist, however, he definitely was not a conservative.

Conservatives have no problem intellectually defending the status quo if they keep to current events. However, they do have problems when dealing with history. After all, eventually, you always lose the argument when the system is reformed.

Therefore, as a conservative you joined the Young Americans for Freedom, rather than organizations that supported the civil rights movement or opposed apartheid in South Africa.

You are clearly aware that the conservatism of your youth was wrong and you would now like to defend the new status quo that favours equal rights of all races. However, we have it on record, that when it really mattered, you were a conservative opposing change. That is what Edward Kennedy means when he says: “Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not answered my question whether you denounce the civil liberties violations of the Castro regime and support a continuing economic boycot of Cuba until the political prisoners are released.

Do you only oppose civil rights abuses of right-oriented dictatorships?

RFK's record was exemplary.

He drove the campaign to oust Castro.

He inspired the DOJ campaign against OC and inspired Robert Blakey who wrote the RICO law that has been used so effectively.

And he opposed apartheid in South Africa.

The leading private organization fighting the horrors of modern trafficking that is a scourge primarily on women and often even girls is headed by a Christian attorney who is sacrificing a market value salary to spur that fight.

It is one thing to talk the talk and another to walk the walk.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not answered my question whether you denounce the civil liberties violations of the Castro regime and support a continuing economic boycot of Cuba until the political prisoners are released.

Do you only oppose civil rights abuses of right-oriented dictatorships?

I am a libertarian socialist and so I have a long record of opposing civil rights abuses in capitalist and communist countries. I disagree strongly with the way that both Castro and Bush treat their political prisoners. However, I am not in favour of an economic boycott of either country.

I was in favour of an economic boycott of Rhodesia and South Africa because their political oppression was based on race rather than political beliefs. We are all free to change our political beliefs but we cannot change the colour of our skins.

In my opinion, the worse crime a government can commit is to illegally invade another country. That is of course a crime that my own government is currently guilty of committing. As we live in a democracy, hopefully we will be able to punish our governments for carrying out this moral outrage. Tony Blair was forced to resign because he lost the support of his party over his Iraq policy. Hopefully, George Bush will be replaced by someone who opposes the idea of illegal invasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in favour of an economic boycott of Rhodesia and South Africa because their political oppression was based on race rather than political beliefs. We are all free to change our political beliefs but we cannot change the colour of our skins.

Unbelievable response! I almost fell off my chair! So the doctor imprisoned by Castro for trying to teach Cubans how MLK used nonviolent civil disobedeience should get out of prison by changing his political beliefs and pledging his fealty to Fidel? I assume you would then apply that same principle to right wing dictatorships?

What a telling reply. Do not boycot regimes whose only prisoners are prisoners of conscience! I am shocked, and I do not say that with the tone it was said in "Casablanca"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in favour of an economic boycott of Rhodesia and South Africa because their political oppression was based on race rather than political beliefs. We are all free to change our political beliefs but we cannot change the colour of our skins.

Unbelievable response! I almost fell off my chair! So the doctor imprisoned by Castro for trying to teach Cubans how MLK used nonviolent civil disobedeience should get out of prison by changing his political beliefs and pledging his fealty to Fidel? I assume you would then apply that same principle to right wing dictatorships?

I am not saying that I approve of Castro's behaviour. I am just explaining why I was in favour of an economic boycott of South Africa until democracy was introduced. It worked, despite the attempts of Reagan. Once again you ignore the crimes carried out by leaders of the Republican Party. What are your views on the holding of political prisoners by the Americans in Cuba?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between a terrorist and a doctor who advocates peaceful civil disobedience.

Why should there not be an economic boycott of Cuba at least until all political prisoners are released? Or do you think they should simply become good Communists to get out of jail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And John S., how is it a statement against conservatism?

I don't think life can be so easily divided as liberal vs. conservatism, right wing vs. left wing and commies vs. fascists, as some small minded people insist on doing.

You're absolutely right, Bill...I fail to see exclusively left-wing OR exclusively right-wing values here, or any statements against conservatism.

My dictionary defines conservatism as "a political philosophy or attitude that emphasises respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism and opposition to sudden change in the established order." The term derives from the Latin, conservāre, to conserve; "to keep, guard, observe". The philosophy of conservatism was revived by Edmund Burke in opposition to the radicalism of Tom Paine. In his writings Burke stresses "continuity and a preservation of our present institutions for fear that change could awaken the tempests and undermine the fragile social order."

Edward Kennedy's speech is full of references to those who attempted to change the social order. For example, he quotes Thomas Jefferson's famous phrase "all men are created equal." This is a reference to the philosophy of Jesus Christ, whose teachings against conservatism resulted in him being executed.

A large part of the eulogy is made up of a speech made by Robert Kennedy in 1966 about the situation in South Africa. It starts with the statement: "There is discrimination in this world and slavery and slaughter and starvation. Governments repress their people; millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich and wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere. These are differing evils, but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfection of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, our lack of sensibility towards the suffering of our fellows."

This is a clear statement against inequality and addressing the situation faced by the black people in South Africa. Was this a statement shared by those promoting the philosophy of conservatism? No it was not. Can I remind you what conservatives believed about South Africa in the 1960s? They argued that the white apartheid government had brought stability to the country and was keeping it out of the hands of the communists. As late as the 1980s Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were arguing that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and were vetoing attempts to impose effective sanctions against this racist regime.

Kennedy then goes on to the most important aspect of his speech: "Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence."

As he points out, it takes courage to question the status quo if you are someone who is one of those who enjoy a privileged life. It is far easier to ignore the sufferings of the poor. You will be criticised by those who understandably fear they will lose out financially from any redistribution of wealth and power. This is the main reason why people advocate conservatism. It is a philosophy that attempts to justify their selfishness.

Kennedy goes onto argue that it is necessary to take on conservatism if a fairer society is going to be created: "Yet it (courage) is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe."

Kennedy finishes off with a very powerful phrase: "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not." This is a quotation from George Bernard Shaw. In 1882 he read the works of Karl Marx and as a result joined the Social Democratic Federation, Britain's first revolutionary political party. He was also influenced by the writings of William Morris. Like a large number of writers and artists of this period, Shaw became a socialist and called for a radical reform of the capitalist society. He thought that it was possible to create a society based on equality. Of course, he was attacked in the way suggested by Robert Kennedy. However, Shaw had moral courage and stuck to his socialist beliefs. As he says: "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jshaw.htm

John, I understand all that. You fail to mention that Conservativsm became almost a religious cult in the USA beginning with Goldwater and continues today as a political philosophy that Bush has tarnished, that rallys around strong military and low taxes.

Liberalism on the other hand, is their enemy, even though it doesn't have the cult base, and merely referes to the liberally educated person with an open mind.

It's not as simple as branding conservatives as seeking the status quo and

Many if not most conservatives are hypocrites, as I learned in the attempt to save historic buildings, which were demolished by mainly so-called "conservative businessmen" who were not interested in conserving the culture or past or maintaining or chaning the social order, but merely making money.

I don't see in that speech where EK says it is necessary to "take on conservatism" as he doesn't mention the word in the entire speech.

While advocating a change in the social order certainly "takes on" so-called conservatives, I don't think that speech should be appropriated and rhetorically used as being anti-conservative, as it is much more than being mere liberal or anti-conservative. It is more radical, almost revolutionary.

While liberals may be the enemy of small minded conservatives, conseratives aren't the enemy, but racism, poverty, war, evil systems of government and bad people in powerful positions.

Bill Kelly

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many if not most conservatives are hypocrites, as I learned in the attempt to save historic buildings, which were demolished by mainly so-called "conservative businessmen" who were not interested in conserving the culture or past or maintaining or chaning the social order, but merely making money.

I don't see in that speech where EK says it is necessary to "take on conservatism" as he doesn't mention the word in the entire speech.

While advocating a change in the social order certainly "takes on" so-called conservatives, I don't think that speech should be appropriated and rhetorically used as being anti-conservative, as it is much more than being mere liberal or anti-conservative. It is more radical, almost revolutionary.

While liberals may be the enemy of small minded conservatives, conseratives aren't the enemy, but racism, poverty, war, evil systems of government and bad people in powerful positions.

Political terms definitely cause problems. You have redefined conservatism in relation to American politics since Goldwater. The racists in the early 1960s would today claim that they are now in favour of civil rights. The real test is what people did at the time.

I am willing to accept that Kennedy’s speech does not directly attack those who supported people like Goldwater. However, it is difficult to read passages such as the following to see who his targets were: “"There is discrimination in this world and slavery and slaughter and starvation. Governments repress their people; millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich and wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere. These are differing evils, but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfection of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, our lack of sensibility towards the suffering of our fellows.”

Do you think Edward Kennedy has lived up to the standards suggested in his speech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many if not most conservatives are hypocrites, as I learned in the attempt to save historic buildings, which were demolished by mainly so-called "conservative businessmen" who were not interested in conserving the culture or past or maintaining or chaning the social order, but merely making money.

I don't see in that speech where EK says it is necessary to "take on conservatism" as he doesn't mention the word in the entire speech.

While advocating a change in the social order certainly "takes on" so-called conservatives, I don't think that speech should be appropriated and rhetorically used as being anti-conservative, as it is much more than being mere liberal or anti-conservative. It is more radical, almost revolutionary.

While liberals may be the enemy of small minded conservatives, conseratives aren't the enemy, but racism, poverty, war, evil systems of government and bad people in powerful positions.

Political terms definitely cause problems. You have redefined conservatism in relation to American politics since Goldwater. The racists in the early 1960s would today claim that they are now in favour of civil rights. The real test is what people did at the time.

I am willing to accept that Kennedy's speech does not directly attack those who supported people like Goldwater. However, it is difficult to read passages such as the following to see who his targets were: ""There is discrimination in this world and slavery and slaughter and starvation. Governments repress their people; millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich and wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere. These are differing evils, but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfection of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, our lack of sensibility towards the suffering of our fellows."

Do you think Edward Kennedy has lived up to the standards suggested in his speech?

It just doesn't do any good to generalize to the extreme and suggest that JFK was killed by a commie, or right wingers, or the CIA or Mafia or whatever....and trying to divide the world into liberals and conservatives just doesn't work in my perspective of things.

As for TK, I think Teddy was pretty much effectively compromised at Chapaquidick.

But he has done what he can in the Senate as one of the 100.

Nor do I think others should be given too much credit for his speeches.

When I visited Ted Kennedy's home in the late 1970s, early in the evening, he was in the library, with roaring fireplace, comfortable in a suit and tight fitting tie, talking on the phone a sister, smoking a cigar and listening to a tape of one of JFK's speeches.

Oratory, I think, is a branch of logic, and the Kennedys, if anything, were terrific orators, who carefully crafted what they wanted to say and delivered it with passion.

I remember being in my logic class with Mrs. Labidie, who assigned us the task of reviewing Ted Kennedy's Chapaquidick speech as he delievered it, and its relation to pathos, and grade him on it.

And without further eloquence....

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for TK, I think Teddy was pretty much effectively compromised at Chapaquidick.

But he has done what he can in the Senate as one of the 100.

Has he been a good "liberal"? What was his views on the invasion of Iraq? According to one website in 2007 he helped pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which incrementally raises the minimum wage by $2.10 to $7.25 over a two year period. The bill also included higher taxes for many $1 million-plus executives. Kennedy was quoted as saying, "Passing this wage hike represents a small, but necessary step to help lift America's working poor out of the ditches of poverty and onto the road toward economic prosperity." Liberalism at its best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for TK, I think Teddy was pretty much effectively compromised at Chapaquidick.

But he has done what he can in the Senate as one of the 100.

Has he been a good "liberal"? What was his views on the invasion of Iraq? According to one website in 2007 he helped pass the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which incrementally raises the minimum wage by $2.10 to $7.25 over a two year period. The bill also included higher taxes for many $1 million-plus executives. Kennedy was quoted as saying, "Passing this wage hike represents a small, but necessary step to help lift America's working poor out of the ditches of poverty and onto the road toward economic prosperity." Liberalism at its best.

I didn't know liberals had a party, plan or manifesto?

Or that Teddy claimed to be a liberal.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know liberals had a party, plan or manifesto?

Or that Teddy claimed to be a liberal.

I am aware that "liberal" is a dirty word in American politics. However, it is acceptable for politicians to describe themselves as conservatives. There is no doubt the NeoCons have won the propaganda battle. No wonder people are disillusioned with politics and such a small percentage bother to vote.

In the UK it is fully acceptable to describe yourself as a "social liberal" (an "economic liberal" is more controversial). The three main political parties attempt to hold the centre ground. In reality, both the major parties are deeply conservative and argue for extremist policies (invasion of Iraq, PFI, privatization, low taxes on the rich, identity cards, detention without trial, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel wrote:

Looking forward to hearing what that book might be.

Daniel, the book to which I made reference is "The Last Patrician: Robert F. Kennedy and the End of American Aristocracy" by Michael Knox Beran.

From Publishers Weekly

Beran has written what she [he] calls an evolutionary biography of Robert Kennedy that is almost metaphysical in its portrayal of the man. He goes into the well-known family history of Joe Kennedy fighting the establishment for respect and how he projected onto his sons his insatiable desire to succeed and be accepted. We see Bobby at Milton Academy in Mass., a training ground for Stimsonians, who were young gentry who would devote their careers (and could well afford to) to public service for the public good. Beran refers to this as "the grand tradition of politics that men like [Henry] Stimson and Theodore Roosevelt had recently revived." RFK followed the public-service road working for his brother and for Senator Joe McCarthy, chasing "commies," crooked union leaders and segregationists. That phase of RFK's career died on November 22, 1963, with his brother. Soon he was evolving away from the Stimsonians. He found in Ralph Waldo Emerson's thesis of self-reliance the alternative to big government as a way to cure poverty. The pain he felt at his brother's assassination bonded him with other people's pain; migrant farmworkers and those in ghettos?urban and rural?became his concern. The book looks at RFK's chauvinistic relationships with women and antagonism towards the Catholic Church, which he found reactionary. Beran, a freelance writer, contends that at the time of his death in 1968, RFK had an almost neo-Reagan outlook on politics and life, and concludes: "He was an imperfect man, possessed of many grievous faults, but we may number him among the saints." This is an unorthodox and stimulating work that will force many to reevaluate the Kennedy they thought they knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...